It is described as the last great American wilderness and has been the battle ground between the US' most powerful oil interests and environmentalists for more than two decades. But last week the giants of the energy industry were celebrating a significant victory and looking forward to the chance to move into one of the most lucrative oil fields left in the US, following the Senate's narrow 51 to 49 decision to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska
On the day that oil hit a record high of US$56.46 a barrel, the soaring price of oil and US energy insecurity were blamed for the decision. But Americans were divided on whether the decision made economic or ecological sense.
US President George W. Bush said that exploiting oil in the Alaskan wilderness was good for security and the national economy.
"This is a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books. In terms of world supply ... demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight. This project will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day," he said.
But for the Democrats and ecologists, who have fought the oil lobby to keep the arctic wilderness as a symbol of pristine America almost since it was first protected in 1960 by president Dwight Eisenhower, it was an irreversible tragedy.
"Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six-month supply of oil 10 years from now?" asked Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the refuge's staunchest defenders.
The oil is expected to be found on the northern Alaskan coastal plain, but drilling is not expected to start until 2007 at the earliest, taking 10 years to come fully on stream. The US Geological Survey estimates there could be anywhere between 5.6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil there, with the most likely amount being 10.4 billion barrels.
The US government expects US$2.5 billion in revenue from oil leases and taxes over the next 10 years, with production peaking at one million barrels a day by 2025.
But opponents said that the decision would not solve US energy problems. A 10 billion barrel find, said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, would represent only about six months' supply of oil for the energy-voracious US economy which currently uses 20 million barrels a day. The oilfield is expected to be roughly the same size as those of Norway or Algeria.
"It makes no sense to industrialize the few pristine wildlife areas left," Clusen said. "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's produced oil. Do the math. We could destroy every last wilderness area in the country, but we will never be able to drill our way to oil independence. We have to wean ourselves off oil."
Senator Maria Cantwell, who led the attack against drilling in the refuge, said the US should focus on conservation and on developing alternative and renewable forms of energy instead of depleting the nation's last known onshore oil reserves.
"By simply encouraging proper tyre pressure on cars and trucks, the US could save more oil than the wildlife refuge could produce", she said.
However, Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski argued that the refuge could provide enough fuel to "replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years."
Backers of the drilling say there will be no damage to the environment because modern drilling methods are far less damaging.
"There will not be any damage to the environment and that is a fact," Senator Larry Craig said.
But major oil developments at Prudhoe Bay, to the west of the arctic refuge, suggest damage is inevitable. The coastal oil belt there is marked by industrial sprawl, the building of thousands of kilometers of roads and pipelines, as well as air strips, drilling platforms and gravel mines.
Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold and nutrient-poor soils, any physical disturbance such as bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration or spills of oil and other toxic substances can scar the land for centuries.
The gravest concern is for wildlife. Opponents say the area which has been opened up for oil exploration is the biological heart of the refuge and the impact will be devastating. The arctic refuge is home to 45 species of land and marine mammals, including polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, musk ox and caribou, arctic foxes, wolverines and snow geese.
Millions of migratory birds use its coastal plain.
Although oil developments will initially be limited to a small part of the coastal plain, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has said oil activity there risks "irreversible" population drops for migratory geese, which rely on lakes there.
But environmentalists had not given up.
"The decision only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Carol Browner, chair of the National Audubon Society, said: "There simply are some places that should be off limits to oil drilling and industrial development, and the arctic refuge is one of them. Since the days of Roosevelt, all Americans have shared a common ethic to protect our country's most beautiful places."
Senator John Kerry was more succinct: "It's a sad day when the Senate sells off America's public lands to the highest bidder," he said.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
RSS